Jihad is a central component of Islam

[Montalban]

So in short, for the ‘no compulsion in religion’

If you’re a Moslem you pay a tax imposed upon you by your own community - at whatever rate, and with whatever exemptions, all well and good.

Then you have a "I must submit humbly to my betters’ tax paid by non-Moslems (which Abu Ismail will now jump in and tell me isn’t paid by the women - I don’t care). It’s paid by non-Moslems.

If you don’t pay this, you die.

Unless, you pay with your sons who then get shipped off to Islamic military school and become Moslem soldiers to be used as canon-fodder* against other Christians until they too submit and have to pay the tax.

All of this is under Islamic ideas of “Let there be no compulsion in religion”

*Spelling I choose, because Islam’s spread by Jihad.

 

[Abu_Ismail]

If you don’t pay this, you die.

Which fiqh ruling is this based on?

 

[Montalban]

I’ve not dealt with it because I have not kept up. Sorry.

Considering I’ve raised it many times to a multitude of excuses from you for not dealing with it… oh, never mind… let’s see your response.

Now let me get this straight. You’re taking an example of a single act performed in a single region and asserting that this act has some basis in Islamic law?

What do you mean ‘single region’? If by single region you mean all over the vast Ottomon Empire, you’d have a ‘single region’.

However this would ignore earlier models, viz…
The devshirmeh was similar to a system used by earlier Islamic dynasties, such as the Abbasids, who used slaves to build armies, especially guard troops, intended to be loyal to the ruler and thus to provide a steady pool of manpower that was outside local politics, but which in many cases ended up supporting or staging coups.

The descendants of these slaves would form the Mamluk dynasties. Despite the intentions of the Abbasid rulers, the Mamluks would eventually grow in power, reducing the Caliph to a virtual puppet.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devshirme

 

[Montalban]

Which fiqh ruling is this based on?

Ask them…

Islam is the religion of guidance, mercy and love, but there are people who force the Muslims to fight when they stand in the way of their conveying the guidance to mankind. The Muslims do not fight anyone until they have told them about the religion of Allaah and given them the choice between two things, either accepting Islam or, if they refuse Islam and keep their own religions, paying the Jizyah (tax) to the Muslims in return for protection. If they refuse both of these choices, then they are to be fought

islamqa.com/index.php?ref=5976&ln=eng

 

[Abu_Ismail]

Ask them…

Haha well according to that site I am a heretic along with the majority of Muslims so don’t expect me to agree with anything they tell you.

They are 19th century reformers of Islam who have twisted beliefs. If you take them as any authority, no wonder you’re screwed up. I feel sorry for you now.

 

[Montalban]

Haha well according to that site I am a heretic along with the majority of Muslims so don’t expect me to agree with anything they tell you.

They are 19th century reformers of Islam who have twisted beliefs. If you take them as any authority, no wonder you’re screwed up. I feel sorry for you now.

Many Moslems take them as an authority, hence they write to them.

But the commandment is in the Koran to keep fighting until they submit (by paying the tax).

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=282392

You may have missed this verse!

 

[Abu_Ismail]

You may have missed this verse!

No, I didn’t. Nor did the scholars who decide what’s a legitimate ruling, based on all the evidence, and not just what suits them.

 

[Montalban]

No, I didn’t. Nor did the scholars who decide what’s a legitimate ruling, based on all the evidence, and not just what suits them.

So what leaders say that this doesn’t mean that people should be oppressed in their faith?

 

[Montalban]

So far this thread has developed into arguments over tax.

And, to quibbling over who has to pay, and for how much

Rodrigo Bivar brought this thread back into focus by stating that the tax on non-Moslems was imposed - on pain of death.

I have mentioned other impositions placed upon the non-Moslem population. Here is a more extensive list
A summary of these laws:

(a) erection of new non-Moslem places of worship is forbidden

(b) the Koran may not be taught to a “protected subject” (not even allowed to touch a Koran)

the “protected subject” may not:

(c) buy a slave or maidservant owned by a Moslem (this prevented Jews from doing what they often did in both Roman times and in pre-civil war times: “buy” slaves in order to free them)

(d) sell to a Moslem either alcoholic substances or animal carcasses which were not ritualy slaughtered

(e) “prevent” (i.e. talk to or rescue from forced conversion) anyone converting to Islam

(f) use Moslem name

(g) own or carry weapons

(h) ride on a horse or mule (and if riding on an ***, saddle was forbidden, and riding was only allowed side-saddle)

(i) have a structure (house or tomb) “higher” than a Moslem’s

(j) raise their voices in prayer (even in a house of worship or during mourning or grief or even during burying their dead) or show any signs of their religion in public (e.g. cross) or of mourning in public

(k) work in government offices or any position of authority

(l) employ a Moslem in their service The “protected subject” was further required (aside from tax, otherwise known as “protection money”):

(m) stand in the presence of, and honour, a Moslem

accommodate (give food and shelter, and whatever else, for free) for three days to each Muslim traveler

(o) wear distinguishing clothing (Jews yellow, Christians blue) and hair styles

(p) wear a sign around the neck when using the bathhouse

And, one especially interesting one:

(q) The property of the deceased (non-Moslem) was to belong to the authorities until the heirs prove their right to it according to Islamic law (note: a non-Moslem testimony would not be accepted in a court, so pretty well, this meant a Moslem had to testify that the Jew is the legal heir), otherwise, the property is transferred to the “authorities”.

This is because their god commanded the followers to make Islam prevail over all
[48.28] He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness.

 

[Abu_Ismail]

Fair enough Monteblan, I could spend hours typing up a response but to be honest I can’t compete with cut and paste jobs of selective evidence. I’m at the point now where I believe that any evidence I present will be rejected, so why bother? You obviously take the same views as the extremists in the Muslim community who interpret everything literally and pick and choose whatever they want to prove their argument, and I’m better off putting my energy and time into working on changing them than wasting time with people who have no inclination to learn anything and are simply out to put down other peoples beliefs at any cost.

 

[Montalban]

Fair enough Monteblan,

M-O-N-T-A-L-B-A-N!

I could spend hours typing up a response but to be honest I can’t compete with cut and paste jobs of selective evidence

That’s your claim - based on you saying so, backed by you saying so. That’s hardly convincing stuff… and don’t forget, if you think you can’t convince me, I’m not the only reader of this post. There’s many people here who are hoping to see you construct a reasoned response. But, alas!

I’ve asked you to offer any Islamic opinion to support your stance. None. You could at the very least have mentioned Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s opinion - which is to treat Dhimmi decently - of course, I’d respond that this is not an ‘historic’ opinion. But alas, you’ve opted for the ‘just-so’ approach that all Moslems adopt on these fora.

I’ve asked you to deal with the ‘boy tax’ and I’ve got evasion upon evasion.

You’ve not addressed AT ALL the issue of the Banu Qurayza (who were massacred AFTER they had surrendered)

You down-play a Moslem expert site - based on your own say so.

If offering your own opinion is too tiring what’s that then say?

I’m at the point now where I believe that any evidence I present will be rejected, so why bother?

You’ve not produced ANY evidence. You’ve accused me of making lies about Islam - with regard to Islamic lying. Then you attack your own prophet - as I cited Hadith. And you missed the point that I didn’t say lying is permitted, carte blanche

Most of your reactions have been based on such misreadings.

Most of your posts have been to address other issues; including simply accusing me of red-herring, even on points you raised!

And to accuse me of not using Islamic sites, when I did!

You obviously take the same views as the extremists in the Muslim community who interpret everything literally and pick and choose whatever they want to prove their argument, and I’m better off putting my energy and time into working on changing them than wasting time with people who have no inclination to learn anything and are simply out to put down other peoples beliefs at any cost.

Hint: Show them that they’re extremist. Don’t just say “You’re extremists”, or, you’re actually then just as dogmaticly attached to one interpretation as you accuse them of being

Good luck.

 

[Montalban]

I am aware that some modern Moslems offer more softer stances towards Dhimmi.

Here’s something even an apologist such as yourself should have mentioned…

Ghamidi believes that there are certain directives of the Qur’an pertaining to war which were specific only to the prophet Muhammad and certain specified peoples of his times (particularly the progeny of Abraham: the Ishmaelites, the Israelites, and the Nazarites). Thus, the prophet and his designated followers waged a war against Divinely specified peoples of their time (the polytheists and the Israelites and Nazarites of Arabia and some other Jews, Christians, et al) as a form of Divine punishment and asked the polytheists of Arabia for submission to Islam as a condition for exoneration and the others for jizya and submission to the political authority of the Muslims for exemption from death punishment and for military protection as the dhimmis of the Muslims. Therefore, after the prophet and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam. The only valid basis for jihad through arms is to end oppression when all other measures have failed.[11]. According to him Jihad can only be waged by an organized Islamic state. No person, party or group can take arms into their hands (for the purpose of waging Jihad) under any circumstances. Another corollary, in his opinion, is that death punishment for apostasy was also specifically for the recipients of the same Divine punishment during the prophet’s times – for they had persistently denied the truth of the prophet’s mission even after it had been made conclusively evident to them by God through the prophet
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javed_Ahmed_Ghamidi#Jihad

See your debate’s so bad - so ‘evidence-lite’ that I’ve had to step in and help you out.

 

[dolphinlove]

Fair enough Monteblan

Or Monty

 

[Abraxsis]

It is because of Jihad as a central component of Islam that conflict with the West is inevitable. It is very simple, they must convert or subjugate everyone and muslims that dont believe in that idea are bad Muslims. It is a very simple idea.

Any muslim can come in here and say whatever they want but the truth is the majority of them do and say nothing when it comes to terrorism and jihad. They can say whatever they want to our faces but they say nothing in thier own communities and are just as bad in my eyes.

After 9/11 muslims around the world danced in the streets and rejoiced. That wasnt a handful of “extremists” it was their whole stupid religion.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is because of Jihad as a central component of Islam that conflict with the West is inevitable. It is very simple, they must convert or subjugate everyone and muslims that dont believe in that idea are bad Muslims. It is a very simple idea.
Any muslim can come in here and say whatever they want but the truth is the majority of them do and say nothing when it comes to terrorism and jihad. They can say whatever they want to our faces but they say nothing in thier own communities and are just as bad in my eyes.
After 9/11 muslims around the world danced in the streets and rejoiced. That wasnt a handful of “extremists” it was their whole stupid religion.

Hi

Islam/Quran/Muhammad present a peaceful and moderate and balanced Islam. The terrorists have hijacked Islam and they have no backing or origination of their ideas in Islam/Quran/Muhammad.

The West, as I understand, due to certain disinformation has seen only MullahIslam or MullahShariah; the true face of peaceful and human loving Muhammad and his religion Islam and Islam of PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking moral and peaceful.

The first forty years i.e. before Muhammad was appointed ProphetMessenger by GodAllahYHWH has been offered as a reasonable argument/challenge in Quran before Nonbelievers-of-Mecca, and they could not deny its truthfulness.
Muhammad had a marvelous record of a peace loving person for 40+13=53 years, he joined in welfare activities if there was any in Mecca, he helped the needy and in distress, he stood for the human cause, he never harmed any person. His record in these 53 years is clean by any standards.

And you know Jesus only lived from 23 to 33 years maximum as per the Catholics; who knows what he would have done to his enemies if he would have lived longer, only GodAllahYHWH knows.

GodAllahYHWH appointed Muhammad SAW KhatamunNabiyyeen, his ProphetMessenger. Muhammad lived up to the age of 53 years in Mecca.

I would request my friends here:

1. Please mention name of just one person whom Muhammad converted to the fold of Islam by sword up to the age of 53 years. Please present evidence from Quran.
2. Please mention name of one person whom Muhammad killed up to the age of 53 years for not accepting Islam. Please present evidence from Quran.
3. Please mention name of one person who wanted to go back from Islam to his previous faith or another faith and Muhammad denied him his right and whom Muhammad killed for apostasy up to the age of 53 years. Please present evidence from Quran.
4. Since most readers here are Catholic, kindly mention name of just one Catholic whom Muhammad converted to Islam by sword, or who became a Muslim and then wanted to go back to Catholicism and he was held back, or killed for apostacy.

There is not a single case in all these categories.

There are no verses in Quran that support general killing of people for conversion. Muhammad was truly a peaceful person so should be the Muslims if they follow him.

Thanks

 

[Abraxsis]

I can name millions of Muslims who were converted by the sword.

Do you deny that about half of the Christian world was taken away by Islam? I am not a history buff, but Im pretty sure Egypt, Turkey, the Arabian pennisula, Spain( Catholic again after hundreds of years fighting the Moors), and North Africa were Catholic before they were muslims or would you rather just gloss over that little jihad in the 7th century that made Islam what it is today?

Mohammed is depicted as being a brutal killer, a polygamist, and pedaphile by Muslim eye witness accounts in several hadiths. Why would a muslim who was an eyewitness lie about these things? Do you deny that too?

 

[De_Maria]

So it’s come down to insults now has it?

It is a fact. However, didn’t you call me a “backyard operator”? How is that not an insult?

Or are you permitted to insult as you please? Is that because you’re a Muslim and we aren’t?

 

[De_Maria]

Hi

Islam/Quran/Muhammad present a peaceful and moderate and balanced Islam.

Not so. Even a cursory look at world history shows that Mohammed ruled by the sword.

The terrorists have hijacked Islam and they have no backing or origination of their ideas in Islam/Quran/Muhammad.

Yet they are the majority. And so called moderate Muslems don’t defy them.

The West, … PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 is yet hidden from their eyes, which is truly speaking moral and peaceful.

Who is this PromisedMessiah 1835-1908. What sect of Islam do you represent?

The first forty years i.e. before Muhammad was appointed ProphetMessenger by GodAllahYHWH has been offered as a reasonable argument/challenge in Quran before Nonbelievers-of-Mecca, and they could not deny its truthfulness.

What does that mean?

Muhammad had a marvelous record of a peace loving person for 40+13=53 years,…
And you know Jesus only lived from 23 to 33 years maximum as per the Catholics;

Are you comparing Jesus to Muhammad. Yet the Quran itself says Jesus never sinned. Whereas Muhammad never denied his sinfulness. What you have just written above is called “hagiography”. In your eyes, Muhammad never did any wrong. Yet there is no evidence of what he did or did not do in his first 40 years.

who knows what he would have done to his enemies if he would have lived longer, only GodAllahYHWH knows.

Again, you compare Jesus to Muhammad. Jesus came to die for our sins. That was His mission. The Crucifixion is a stumbling block for unbelievers.

GodAllahYHWH appointed Muhammad SAW KhatamunNabiyyeen, his ProphetMessenger. Muhammad lived up to the age of 53 years in Mecca.

According to Muhammad.

I would request my friends here:

1. Please mention name of just one person whom Muhammad converted to the fold of Islam by sword up to the age of 53 years. Please present evidence from Quran.

We are not believers of the Quran, why must we provide evidence from that book when we have history to tell us what Muhammad actually did.

But here is what the hadith say:

**Islam is to be imposed by force. **

• Mohammed said,* "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever says, “** None has the right to be worshipped but Allah** , his life and property will be saved by me.”* (otherwise it will not). Vol. 4:196
  Apostasy is punishable by death.
• Mohammed said,* “Whoever** changes** his Islamic religion,** kill** him.”* Vol. 9:57
  A Muslim must not be killed if he kills a non-Muslim.
  Mohammed said,* “** No Muslim should be killed** for killing a Kafir” (infidel).* Vol. 9:50
  Islamreview.com

1. Please mention name of one person whom Muhammad killed up to the age of 53 years for not accepting Islam. Please present evidence from Quran.

The Quran doesn’t admit that Muhammad killed anyone. But he certainly ordered their death didn’t he:

This hadith shows Allah reprimanding Muhammad for his cruelty. When the Apostle of Allah . . . cut off (the hands and feet of) those who had stolen his camels and he had their eyes put out by fire (heated nails), Allah reprimanded him on that (action), and Allah, the Exalted, revealed: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution or crucifixion.” (Abu Dawud, no. 4357)

This gruesome hadith passage reports that a woman was buried up to her chest and stoned to death, her blood spurting: And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al—Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her . . . (Muslim no. 4206)
cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

1. Please mention name of one person who wanted to go back from Islam to his previous faith or another faith and Muhammad denied him his right and whom Muhammad killed for apostasy up to the age of 53 years. Please present evidence from Quran.

Isn’t Muhammad the one who said, “If he changes religions, kill him.”

Under those circumstances why would anyone in their right mind make it known that they wanted to change religions?

1. Since most readers here are Catholic, kindly mention name of just one Catholic whom Muhammad converted to Islam by sword, or who became a Muslim and then wanted to go back to Catholicism and he was held back, or killed for apostacy.

The Byzantines were Catholic. Muhammad massacred them in AD 630.

There is not a single case in all these categories.

There are no verses in Quran that support general killing of people for conversion. Muhammad was truly a peaceful person so should be the Muslims if they follow him.

Except the ones I presented earlier which you chose to ignore.

Thanks

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Abraxsis]

It is also an interesting footnote that Mohammed personally led the attack on both Mecca and Medina. A brutal slaughter of pagen people. While they may not have been Catholic, the idea that polythiests are sub human is a common theme in Islamic tradition. Furthermore, any comparision between Jesus and Mohammed is going to have a weak basis. Muslim holy texts descirbe Jesus as being without sin. If Islamic texts say that then I fail to understand how Muslims cant take the next step with it. Mohammed was a warrior among other shameful things, to compare Mohammed to Jesus is quite frankly slap in the face to all Christians around the world.